On June 21, 2024, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) issued an order concerning RTI Appeal Registration No. ISBBI/A/E/24/00015, filed by Shivam Gupta. The appeal challenged the response provided by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of IBBI to Gupta’s RTI application. This article delves into the details of the appeal, the grounds for the decision, and the implications for the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Background of the Appeal
Shivam Gupta submitted an RTI application (No. ISBBI/R/E/24/00060) on April 9, 2024, requesting a complete copy of the application numbered IBBI/C/2023/00911, filed against Mr. Arvind Kumar. The CPIO’s response on May 3, 2024, indicated that the information sought was unclear, but it mentioned that action had been initiated in accordance with IBBI (Inspection and Investigation) Regulations, 2017.
Contentions of the Appellant
In his appeal dated May 29, 2024, Gupta argued that his request was clear and straightforward, seeking every document related to the specified application. He insisted that the CPIO provide the complete information as requested.
Examination by the First Appellate Authority
The First Appellate Authority, led by Jithesh John, scrutinized the RTI application, the CPIO’s response, and the appeal filed by Gupta. The examination centered around the definition of ‘information’ under the RTI Act and the clarity of Gupta’s request.
Scope of Information under the RTI Act
The RTI Act’s section 2(f) defines ‘information’ as any material in any form, including records, documents, emails, opinions, advices, etc., held by a public authority. Section 2(j) elaborates the ‘right to information’ as the right to access such information under the control of a public authority, subject to the Act’s provisions and exemptions under section 8.
Rationale for the Decision
The Authority found Gupta’s request vague, noting that phrases like ‘cover to cover’ and ‘each and every document’ lacked specificity. The request did not clearly define the exact documents or information needed. The order referenced a precedent (Shri Harmit Singh vs. Central Excise Department, 2008) where a similar vague request was rightfully rejected. Thus, the Authority concluded that the appeal did not meet the criteria of ‘information’ as defined under the RTI Act and dismissed the appeal.
BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA
2nd Floor, Jeevan Vihar Building
Sansad Marg, New Delhi- 110 001
Dated: 21st June, 2024
RTI Appeal Registration No. ISBBI/A/E/24/00015
IN THE MATTER OF
Shivam Gupta
Vs.
Central Public Information Officer
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India
2nd Floor, Jeevan Vihar Building
Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110 001.
ORDER
1. The Appellant has filed the present Appeal dated 29th May 2024, challenging the communication of the Respondent dated 3rd May 2024 with regard to his RTI Application No. ISBBI/R/E/24/00060 dated 9th April 2024 filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act).
2. In the RTI Application, the Appellant has stated for the following – “cover to cover copy for application: IBBI/C/2023/00911, filed against Mr. Arvind Kumar”
3. The Respondent’s replied the RTI Application as follows –
“The information sought is not clear. However, it is informed that after examination of the said complaint, action has been initiated in terms of IBBI (Inspection and Investigation) Regulations, 2017.”
4. The Appellant, in his Appeal stated that:-
“… The information sought is very clear. All I ask is for the cover-to-cover, i.e. each and every document pertaining to the Application Number: IBBI/C/2023/00911 filed on 11.05.2023. kindly do the needful”
5. I have carefully examined the application, the response of the Respondent and the Appeal and find that the matter can be decided based on the material available on record. Before examining the request, I deem it appropriate to deal with scope of information and right to receive the information under the RTI Act. It is noted that in terms of section 2(f) of the RTI Act ‘information’ means “any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.” This definition contemplates providing of material in the forms of records, documents, opinions, advice, etc. It does not include giving opinions on issues raised or providing clarifications or advice to inquisitions. Section 2(j) of the RTI Act defines the “right to information” in term of information accessible under the Act which is held by or is under the control of a public authority and which can be disclosed subject to exemptions under section 8 of the RTI Act. Thus, if the public authority holds any ‘information’ in the form of data, statistics, abstracts, etc. an applicant can have access to the same under the RTI Act subject to exemptions under section 8. It is thus, clear that the “right to information” under section 3 of the RTI Act is circumscribed by RTI Act itself as the right is limited within scope of ‘information’ as defined under section 2(f) and is subject to other provisions including those under section 8 of the Act.
6. I note that the Appellant has not specified the exact ‘information’ that he needs from the Respondent. The phrases like ‘cover to cover’ and ‘each and every document’ is vague and unclear and does not find its mention in the definition of ‘information’ mentioned in section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Accordingly, I deem the Appeal as unclear and vague and same does not fall within the definition of ‘information’ and ‘right to information’ under the RTI Act, 2005. The matter of Shri Harmit Singh Vs. Central Excise Department, Chandigarh (Order dated November 07, 2008) the Hon’ble GIG inter alia held that the respondents therein were right in rejecting the request as it is quite unclear and vague and no specific information can be identified on the basis of the signals contained in the query.
7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/
(Jithesh John)
First Appellate Authority
Copy to:
1. Appellant, Shivam Gupta.
2. CPIO, The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, 2nd Floor, Jeevan Vihar Building, Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110 001.
